Toward a Holistic Understanding of Factors That Support or Inhibit Graduate Student Success

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract indicates the limited institutional scope of the empirical study and its results.

To strengthen the relevance in point 1 Introduction in terms of research interest in the topic and in the context of the research object.

It is necessary to strengthen the argumentation of the analysis in point 3 of the manuscript.

To justify the recommendations given in point 5.1. Recommendations for University Programs.

It should be explicitly stated that the study and its results concern a university located in the USA. There is a lack of information on the organizational behavior of the university and to what extent it predetermines the results of the empirical study.

It is necessary to focus more deeply on the profile of the respondents, which common environmental factors provoke their needs in the context of Maslow's pyramid? This can be set as a direction for future research.

Author Response

Reviewer One:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The abstract indicates the limited institutional scope of the empirical study and its results.
  • A sentence has been added in the abstract that indicates the limitation of a study from one institution.
• To strengthen the relevance in point 1 Introduction in terms of research interest in the topic and in the context of the research object.
  • Thank you for this suggestion. We have moved the paragraph from 1.2 up to 1. Introduction (in the third paragraph). This highlights at the very beginning the constructs that are the focus of the research.
  • In addition, the purpose statement was modified to specify what was examined in the survey: financial support, mentor support, sense of belonging, microaffirmations, microaggressions, imposter syndrome, and access and opportunities to conduct research and write academic papers.
• It is necessary to strengthen the argumentation of the analysis in point 3 of the manuscript.
  • An introductory paragraph was added under point 3 to give an explanation for the analyses that follow.
• To justify the recommendations given in point 5.1. Recommendations for University Programs.
  • A sentence has been added at the beginning of 5.1 to link the recommendations back to the research findings of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• It should be explicitly stated that the study and its results concern a university located in the USA.
  • Added “at a university in the southeastern United States” to the second sentence in the conclusions section.
• There is a lack of information on the organizational behavior of the university and to what extent it predetermines the results of the empirical study.
  • In section 2.2 more details have been added to describe the organization of the university.
• It is necessary to focus more deeply on the profile of the respondents, which common environmental factors provoke their needs in the context of Maslow's pyramid? This can be set as a direction for future research.
  • Added suggestion to 5.2 Recommendations for Future Research, #1.
  • Focus more deeply on the profile of the respondents (e.g., socioeconomic background, international status, or first-generation status) and common environmental factors that provoke their needs in the context of Maslow’s pyramid.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an excellent study and looking at trends in secondary education from a holistic perspective is important. I would encourage the authors to consider going back to their point on the limitations with race/ethnicity and microaggressions and consider including a statement on future research (perhaps a mixed methods approach would be best here). Another idea for scaffolding includes graduate student mentorship, which many R1s already implement in their doctoral programs. Finally, I'm not sure if this is relevant here, but I can't help but wonder how graduate/doctoral programs will be further impacted by the looming enrollment cliff.

Author Response

Reviewer Two:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• This is an excellent study and looking at trends in secondary education from a holistic perspective is important.
• I would encourage the authors to consider going back to their point on the limitations with race/ethnicity and microaggressions and consider including a statement on future research (perhaps a mixed methods approach would be best here).
  • A statement has been included to consider mixed methods to illuminate aspects that were not highlighted by the survey.
• Another idea for scaffolding includes graduate student mentorship, which many R1s already implement in their doctoral programs.
  • Added idea of graduate student mentorship to section 5.1 Recommendations for University Programs, as point 4. “ Include graduate student mentorship between beginning students and those with a few years of experience.“
• Finally, I'm not sure if this is relevant here, but I can't help but wonder how graduate/doctoral programs will be further impacted by the looming enrollment cliff.
  • The following statement was added in the last paragraph of the conclusions section, “Given the expected dropoff in college enrollment expected in 2025, it seems more important than ever to meet the needs of a diverse range of students.”

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is well written and reports on an important issue in higher education. There are a few minor things that I recommend you look at:

Page 4 - lines 172/173 has psychological needs where I think it should be physiological. This also happens on page 16 line 603/604.

There is some repetition across the two paragraphs at the top of page 16 that I recommend be looked at.

Page 5- line 218 & Page 16- line 580 have a random ).

Finally, why was the survey only sent to 4044 students of a possible 5400. I short reason would help here.

 

Author Response

Reviewer Three:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is well-written and reports on an important issue in higher education. There are a few minor things that I recommend you look at:

• Page 4 - lines 172/173 has psychological needs where I think it should be physiological. This also happens on page 16 line 603/604.
  • The suggested changes were made.
• There is some repetition across the two paragraphs at the top of page 16 that I recommend be looked at.
  • The paragraphs were condensed to modify the redundancy.
• Page 5- line 218 & Page 16- line 580 have a random ).
  • The suggested changes were made.
• Finally, why was the survey only sent to 4044 students of a possible 5400. I short reason would help here.
  • In section 2.2, an explanation was added. Students who were graduating in December were not included in the survey as they were receiving other surveys related to graduation. In addition, students who were in non-research-based graduate programs were not included in the study (e.g., Master of Arts in Teaching).